About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 25, Hicks 4, Fbi 3, Us 2, The City 2, California 2, Rachel Roberts 1, Jane Kim 1, Farrell 1, Roxanne Shell 1, Kudo 1, Am Nadia 1, Tina 1, Chan 1, United States 1, Alice Houseman 1, Marshall 1, New York 1, San Francisco California 1, Dejesus 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    January 23, 2013
    7:30 - 8:00pm PST  

7:30pm
did a great job. >> the formal and we were experimenting and i appreciate everyone taking the risk and it looked like a minicommission meeting and people rearranged the chairs and more of a circle and it changes the space so it was more of a discussion unlike the commission meetings where you have public comment where we don't respond and the chief answered tough questions and the commissioners got some good feedback from folks and we actually had a chance to respond, but not in a way that was not productive. it was questions, a discussion, answers, and even without a time limit because how great the commissioner was at facilitating. ieng everyone got to speak and some got to speak twice and it was orderly and reasonable. >> how many people attended? >> there was a lot of media there. in terms of community
7:31pm
members 20 to 35. >> chief, were you the soul spokesperson. >> no. the commanders were there to speak to issues and to speak to the less lethal array that's been considered and then actually chief beale and others were there for moral support. >> good. thank you. thank you. >> and director hicks. >> and director hicks. >> any public comment on line item 3a, b, c, d? >> good evening. how are you? >> good evening commissioners.
7:32pm
i am zoey polk and work with the human rights commission and here on the meeting that was had that commissioner chan mentioned briefly when discussing the cjcj report. the hearing took place and we titled it the human rights impact and want to thank the commissioner for attending. this is part of the larger pairier -- [inaudible] as well as the work to -- [inaudible] african-americans migration from san francisco. prior to the hearing met with city partners and the police department and the public defenders office and the [inaudible] and recommendations of people we should talk to and invite to testify on this topic and met with adult probation and advised us to get the most recent
7:33pm
statistics on this. so they were invited to present the testimony along with academics and citizens experts. one of the key factors of the report and testimony they told us they had been reporting on this trend for over 20 years with little or no input from city policy makers. others walked the commission how the war on drugs plays out. the commission solicited recommendations how the city can extract itself from the war on drugs and called a failure in leaders in both parties and former governor gavin newsom and chris christie and [inaudible]. heard testimony from alice houseman and included many people included african-american community said the war on drugs
7:34pm
protects them and has not done that and destroyed many african-american lives. trancey wander testified to his inability to find gainful employment due to drug arrests from her youth and attended a -- stay a from treatment centers. the human rights commission reviewed the testimony recommendations at the hearing and looks forward to a follow up hearing and advise the commission how to revise the impact on war on drugs in san francisco particularly the disproportionately role in the african-american community and i am glad the police commission heard the testimony tonight and i will be ahead to work with both groupings. >> thank you. >> can i ask you a question? there is the study side, the
7:35pm
intellectual side and the people side. one of the complaints that the community has often said the police don't do anything about people selling drugs in our community and they have almost demanded -- can i say that, almost loudly that they come and do something which probably at some point -- i mean sometimes they get people's ear. sometimes they don't. that's probably has exacerbated the failed war and all that kind of thing, but how do you respond to community people when they say -- because obviously one of the complaints that the police do not respond to them and they don't care and a way of showing -- whereas if this was happening out in another area you would do something about it, so if they
7:36pm
come and do something about it there are other things. i am curious how do you 13-7bd to that. >> unfortunately it's not my position to respond. community members don't come to me with those complaints. i can tell you in the work our task is to survey experts and community members and get both sides of the dialogue and what we can do to reduce the disproportionate impact and the consequences and it's not up to me. it's up to the commission to make those recommendations but all sides of the dialogue is what we're presenting to the commission. >>i would say and again it has nothing to do with this, but those are real concerns and the police don't exist in a vacuum with those things and damned if they do and damned if they don't and juggle all of the things and come up with something to
7:37pm
satisfy the people. i just want to put all of the fingers into the pot as someone that does it everyday believe me it's all in there. >> thank you commissioner. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. >> members of the police commission thank you for the opportunity to address you concerning the san francisco civil rights ordinance. i am tiny [inaudible] and my comments are on behalf for a safe san francisco. as you know the coalition worked to address accountability and transparency and san francisco police department relationship with federal counter terrorism agencies and one that we worked on is within the san francisco police department between the federal bureau of investigation in the joint task force. as part of that relationship sfpd entered into a secret agreement with the fbi that did away with decades of progress in san
7:38pm
francisco. members of this coalition have worked with supervisor jane kim's office to pass this ordinance and make sure that local and state standards apply and requires transparency in the process and that the chief issue a report on the mission by them. this was supported by civil rights organizations, community and bar organizations. it was passed unanimously by the board of supervisors and signed into law by the mayor. these groups say by authority of law we demand transparency and accountability and for that reason we're disappointed we were not notified of the report being issued today. indeed we found about it a couple of days ago by happenstance. we are shocked by the lack of substance. when members met with the chief in
7:39pm
2012 he assured us he would include information which we outlined in a letter sent to him on june 8, and to address another question that was presented by commissioner several meetings happened with the chief and staff happened in july and september and after the signing of the ordinance. in short we are disappointed that despite the verbal assurances this report failed to include anymore any useful information regarding the work and this lack of information makes it impossible for the public to have true accountability to know what the police department is doing with regard to this issue. a five minute presentation is not sufficient to that and my colleague will speak on the details of this. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you members of the
7:40pm
commission. thank you for the chance to address you. as tina mentioned i am nadia and with the civil rights committee with the coalition in san and my comments are about the work with the san francisco police department work with the fbi. as many of you may recognize me and hear again the coalition worked to reduce rational and religious profiling of the communities. in fact the first hearing we had was september 2010 so that gives an idea how long we have been working on it and in the san francisco civil rights ordinance. given this effort and for many reasons we were extremely disappointed we were not giving report by the chief and found about it a few days ago and had to scramble schedules. as you know we have
7:41pm
been waiting to speak. we would have more public comment if we had notice. we are concerned about it. we want to outline the communications we had with the chief. we sent a letter to the chief what we thought should be included in the report back and three members of the coalition that couldn't be here tonight met with the chief and others and verbally assured to provide a report with the information requested in the letter and for your reference that mirrors the information required in the code. i can go into that if you like. in subsequent conversations with the chief and two letters soon after the meeting we noted the verbal assurance but in a letter today the chief asserted he never made a commitment to provide that information. we will follow up with the chief's office directly but we're
7:42pm
alarmed that the chief doesn't recognize the importance of this transparency to our communities that worked so hard to get this ordinance passed. as we heard in the report back the policies are explicit and une85al. what we're working with is not like that. regarding the substance of the report we are disappointed we didn't get key items including the number of investigations san francisco police department has taken part with them and a description of the funds in the relationship with the jttf and i just want to repeat something that chief sure said. he said he can only fix san francisco. that is absolutely true. that was the purpose of the san francisco civil rights ordinance. we are ensuring this is properly implemented and all residents will know they're respected in
7:43pm
san francisco and we hope it's the purpose of the commission and of the chief as well. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening. i am rachel roberts and attorney at the council of islamic relations. i traveled two hours to be here tonight from santa clara and we haven't given advance notice about this and i think you understand why it's a problem. i want to let you know why this is an issue of concern for the muslim community and consequence for american muslims. i received more than 50 complaints about fbi voluntarily questioning in 2012 from members of the community. 100% of the clients that represented last year didn't wind up facing criminal charges because of the
7:44pm
voluntarily interviews they were subjected to. this caused them a great deal of distress and one client wrote to me to tell me i was a source of strength for him when his family was in distress and he thought he was in trouble and the agent wanted to interview him about his political opinions about the situation in his county of origin. these are the realities for members of the community they serve and the fact that we were only given a five minute report tonight about the progress of the ordinance which took years to pass is deeply distressing and i hope you go back to the drawing board and give us more information and more transparency. our coalition has made every effort to make communication over with you. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i am roxanne shell. i am the
7:45pm
coordinator at the community for civil rights in the san francisco bay area. at our clinic we assist individuals who had past contact with the criminal justice system. at our clinic we see first hand how a person's past, arrest or conviction can exclude them job and housing opportunities, making a successful reentry difficult in achieving. in 2012 perspective of the clients we. >> >> percent of the clients were san francisco even though african-americans are only 6% of san francisco's population. the statistic alone demonstrates that the criminal justice system disproportionately affects the african-american community in san francisco and we urge the police commission to give
7:46pm
serious consideration to cjcj's report and be willing to work with them in the future. >> thank you very much. any further public comment? >> good evening commission and chief. i hope i'm not wearing out my welcome but to start i would like to thank you for the meeting last night. it was a good format and i think the open change was refreshing and productive and i look forward to the next one. one thing i would say i know we were all pleased to see you were going to incorporate some of the suggestions into the draft and if that is possible to have that by the next meeting that would be great and we could move forward and not have the same comments again and again. i think there were more comments about wanting more san francisco specific data in the presentation so i don't know if you're changing around the presentation at all but to
7:47pm
reiterate that was one concern. onto the matters tonight. i just want to reriterate the experience of looking at racial disparities and i think it was a good discussion tonight, well heard that the data maybe out dated so we're happy to see they will be looking into the recent data and to look at what that may show, but i do agree it's a difficult issue and i think the answer when these sort of statistics show disparities is not automatic to try to explain them away but rather say why is this? and maybe at the end of the day it's not because of the reasons we assume. maybe it's conscious bias, unconscious bias. maybe the new stats don't show rational disparities but we need to look at. as michelle alex andyer herself said they are in the system drug
7:48pm
enforgment is accessible because of the discretion made to officers and the conscious or unconscious bias that can result in selective enforcement. i think we have questions about the type of dealers being arrested. i know we talked about it tonight but are they in the buy bust antics and not putting the dealers away that we need do and talk about the education and the root causes of problems when you're sort of manufacturing these felony convictions with the consequences that bar opportunities for housing and other services that can be a problem and that needs to be looked at from a larger policy. timely we were proud to see of
7:49pm
the progress with the data collection. we want it publicly available. it's great it's going to be made available to them but to put it up on a website would be fantastic. we do a lot of work around the state, realignment issues and the like and san francisco has lower arrest rate than we here and if those arrests are deprioritized we would use to san francisco as an example in the advocacy but we can't do it without the data so we would like to see that as well. >> thank you very much. any further public comment? hearing none -- oh come forward. no. public comment is now closed. please call the next line item. >> line item d, commission announcements and schedule of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting. action. >> i skipped that. i'm sorry.
7:50pm
okay commissioners anything for future? >> yeah. just want to see for next week and for the agenda and community meetings. >> with with reference to next week we are having a meeting, not a community meeting and the majority is from occ hicks and the next meeting is for northern station they're due and scheduled for? >> february 28. >> february 28. >> 28 is a thursday. >> 28 is a thursday. so 27, the last wednesday of the month. >> the 27th, excuse me, yes the last wednesday. >> we have a location. we picked a middle spot. we pick st. vincent de paul street and
7:51pm
invitors supervisor farrell and green to attend the meeting so i think we're ready to go on that one. >> [inaudible] i will have more information from him. >> that is 6:00 o'clock -- >> when? >> february 27. >> 27. >> the last wednesday in february. >> and it's the third wednesday that we're dark, third wednesday? >> actually we are dark -- if i could raise this with the commission. we are generally dark on the second wednesday of the month and commissioner dejesus serve on the democratic central community and they meet and if we can talk as an agenda -- we might have to adgentize that and move the dark one to the third week and if we could agendize that and discuss it. >>i understand we're doing gun
7:52pm
violence presentation. >> well, i wanted to discuss that with you commissioners and if we want to schedule that for the 30 and have the chief figure out who will do the presentation. i don't know if he wanted a presentation or information from the chief. >> it's basically a presentation from the department to kind of get us kick started in terms of some of the policies and practices in san francisco in connection with gun violence and perhaps a review for the commissioners as well for the public, what kind of gun laws people in san francisco, what are they subject to? what is unique perhaps about san francisco california law and so on? and then policies and practices, and then we can go from there in term it is of as a commission we want to do in
7:53pm
addressing this whole issue and talk with the chief a little more after that. >> object we're subject to the gun laws of california and up until new york changed last tuesday were the strictest laws in the united states. new york is number one and we're number two and the mayor vis-a-vis supervisor cohen is introducing two pieces of legislation will tighten up laws above what california has in san francisco. >> it's going into specifics around that and there are unique aspects of san francisco law people might not be aware of so let's getting an idea of what the requirements are, what the law is, and after that what the policies and practices of the department are in general in dealing with gun violence. >> i had a brief conversation
7:54pm
with deputy chief beale railroading that. >> and just. >> >> just to be clear we have the presentation for kudo next week. oh do we -- >> only four. >> that is fine. that's i -- a quorum. thank you. >> i should ask for public comment and what we add to that. energy none public comment is closed. we're actually missing doctor marshall for four. let's go to line item five and move back to four. >> line item five and recommend that the board of supervisors adopt a resolution
7:55pm
retroactively approving the agreement between the san francisco police department and the house house for the police department to provide supplemental services at housing authority developments and for the housing authority to pay the amount listed for the services or proposed contract or action. >> anyway to combine line item five and six? they're identical to the issue and where the the funding is from but separate years. >> because they're two separate agenda items they need to be handled as two separate agenda items. >> all right . commander. >> good evening commissioners, chief sir, director hicks, the rest of the community that is left. inspector monroe -- he
7:56pm
took my thunder so basically that's what i am requesting a recommendation that you ask the board of supervisors to make a recommendation that they adopt the resolution between the san francisco police department and housing authority for the first fiscal year of 2012-13 for the amount listed. >> san francisco has housing cars and officers dedicated to patrol and work with the community in our particular housing developments and that's their assignment and they do other functions and they do community liaison work and important part of that program and with hud and doing that. >> i will give you the list. it's hunter's point east and
7:57pm
west, hunter's view, and sunnydale and the other once listed and there are currently three sergeants and 28 officers assigned to those developments throughout the city. they attend community functions and work there all the time. >> they have substations. >> they have substations and the community can come talk to the officers. it's a great program . >> i have a question. i reviewed the resolution and the attachments and looks i fine to me but the question is about timing. i will go back on the agenda item five. this looks like this is for an agreement
7:58pm
of july 1, 2011 to june 30, 2012. i know things come to us retroactively but i want a sense is this normal? will we expect this half a year later for future types agreements of this sort, or this one from the housing authority and the money from hud? >> no. it's a one time thing we got behind with the mou prepared and we resolved that in the next time. >> yeah. one seemed timely and one seemed old. thank you. >> commissioners that is in your packet. any public comment? hearing none public comment is closed. do i have a motion? >> i thought i read that the original mou started in 2009. is this really the third or fourth year? >> actually it's back to 2004. >>i wrote the original plan
7:59pm
when i was at fob in 2004. >> so we have been fortunate enough to get this for same time for eight years. yeah. okay. just wanted to check on that. thank you. >> great. do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? please call line item six. >> line item six is for the board of supervisors adopt a resolution retroactively adopting a agreement between the san francisco police department and the san francisco housing authority to provide services designated housing authority developments and for the housing authority to pay the city $1,115,000 in fiscal year 2012-2013 and $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2013-2014. for the supplemental law enforcement services